SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Sarah Miller, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Sarah Miller, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen and Wayne Gordon were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Mr. Young, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Young announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Young asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The approval of the minutes from the December 6, 2000 meeting was postponed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 001-01, at 631-633 North West Capitol Street, by Jim Oliver, requesting to construct a new duplex on the existing vacant lot in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the 'findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Oliver was requesting to build a new 2-1/2 story duplex on the vacant lot at 631 No. West Capitol Street. He said that the property is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to "maintain the unique character of older predominantly low-density neighborhood that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics." [SLC Ordinance 21A.24.080(A)].
Mr. Knight said that the Historic Landmark Commission approved this proposal on September 18, 1996, but the one-year approval expired before construction commenced. He said that Mr. Oliver was ready to construct the duplex, and submitted the same plans that were previously approved. Mr. Knight reported that the issues, at the time of approval included the four parking spaces proposed in the front yard, and the height of the building at the west elevation. Mr. Knight said that because of the steep topography of the lot, the applicant did not wish to have parking in the side or rear yards nor did he want to obscure the street elevation with garages. Mr. Knight stated that the applicant proposes putting a four-car parking pad in the front yard, covered with a trellis structure. He noted that parking in the front yard is not allowed in the city except in cases of a property-related hardship, which requires a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Knight said that Mr. Oliver was granted such a variance in 1996. Mr. Knight disclosed the fact that when the Board of Adjustment reviewed the case again on December 18, 2000, the Board, as well as the Planning Staff, was not convinced that parking in the front yard was the only option in this case. He said that the Board encouraged Mr. Oliver to modify his design to accommodate a garage in the rear of the property and continued the case.
Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Oliver said that the revised proposal incorporated the changes requested by the Board of Adjustment and would not differ substantially than the drawings included with this staff report. Mr. Knight noted that the proposal would still require variances for yard setbacks and grade changes and would be heard at the January 22, 2001 Board of Adjustment meeting.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H), H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which was included in the staff report.
H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construct or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: Nearby buildings are a mix of 1, 1-1/2, and 2-story structures, with hipped or gabled roofs. The proposed building would have a double gable roof, with two smaller cross gables, but would be similar in shape to the surrounding buildings. The proposed building would be similar in massing to the surrounding buildings, but the height, especially on the downhill side, was an issue with the surrounding neighbors and the Historic Landmark Commission in its 1996 review. The Historic Landmark Commission members suggested stepping the building down the hill, but ended up approving the proposed design. The maximum building height in this zone is 30 feet or 2-1/2 stories, whichever is less. This height is measured from the average grade to the midpoint of the roof gable.
Staff's finding of fact: Although the proposed house is taller than its immediate neighbors, the height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof shape, and scale of the house is in keeping with the Capitol Hill District, and overall the house is compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape. The proposed design would meet this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of so/ids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The proportion of openings and the related rhythm of solids to voids are regular and traditionally proportional on the front, side, and rear facades. Similarly, the stucco and wood materials would be typical for the types of structures located in this portion of the Capitol Hill Historic District. The current design would not include any sort of front porch, because the trellis covering the parking section would take up the area
Staff's finding of fact: The building would meet this standard in terms of proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, and relationship of materials. If the front yard parking is not allowed by the Board of Adjustment, the applicant should be required to submit drawings of the front (east) elevation to the Historic Landmark Commission for final approval to ensure that the revised design is compatible with the character of the surrounding streetscape. The revised final design should include a compatible front porch.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staff's discussion: The front, side, and rear setbacks of the proposed structure would be compatible with those along the nearby streetscape. The rhythm and spacing of the structure is generally in line with the surrounding buildings. Neighborhood residents, especially those along West Capitol Street, have expressed a strong desire that the Historic Landmark Commission approve designs that accommodate off-street parking that would be used by residents. If the parking were to be relocated, the driveway would be located on the north side of the lot. No landscaping plan is included with the submitted drawings. Further information regarding type and design of the proposed landscaping is needed, but these issues could be resolved at the Architectural Subcommittee or staff level. No streetscape improvements were proposed as part of this application. There is no park strip along this block, although there are sidewalks and a "rolled" gutter.
Staff's finding of fact: The building would meet this standard in terms of walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, directional expression of principal elevation, and streetscape-pedestrian improvements.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The Planning Director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion: The applicant has not determined if this building would remain a duplex or subdivided into a twin home. The building has been designed to meet the lot size and setback requirements for either scenario. The subdivision issue would be resolved in a separate process.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff’s recommendation: "Generally, staff does not make findings or a recommendation the first time a new construction case is reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. In this case, since the Commission in 1996 had previously approved the design, staff made findings based upon those made by the Commission as part of its previous approval. If the current Commissioners are comfortable with the conclusions made by the previous members of the Commission, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) the parking shall be relocated to the rear or side of the property. A minimum of four off-street parking spaces shall be provided. The revised design shall be submitted for approval to the Architectural Subcommittee; 2) a front porch or porches shall be added to the building, and the front yard shall be landscaped; 3) a complete landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval by the Architectural Subcommittee and 4) staff recommends that the Commission delegate final approval to the Architectural Subcommittee once these conditions have been met."
Mr. Littig inquired if this Commission had to agree with the decision made by the Historic Landmark Commission in 1996. Mr. Knight said the Commission did not because that approval expired. Mr. Littig said that he believed that the Palladian windows and the double gabled roof on the front elevation would be too contemporary for the style of the proposed building.
When Mr. Simonsen asked if there had been any new drawings submitted that show parking, Mr. Knight said that the Board of Adjustment Administrator had been provided revised plans, but Mr. Knight indicated that he had not seen them.
Mr. Jim Oliver, the applicant was present. He said that the Board of Adjustment would not approve parking in front and indicated that there was enough room in the rear. Mr. Oliver said that when he met with Mr. Barry Walsh of the City's Transportation Division, it was determined that a four-car garage and a driveway could go in the back of the property without requiring a variance. He pointed to the front entry walks on the submitted plans and said that it would look very similar to what was drawn except they would only be about 6 to 8-feet wide.
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking if the two units were completely independent. Mr. Oliver said that they were. Mr. Parvaz talked about subdividing the property. Mr. Oliver said that he plans to go through the City's condominium process. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the two separate roofs. Mr. Oliver said that one roof is set back from the other, and if the roof went straight across, then height would be an issue. He talked about the slope of the land and compared the height of the proposed structure to others in the neighborhood. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the landscaping. Mr. Oliver said that the landscaping plans had not been completed. He said that the front walk element and front porches could be added.
• Ms. Miller inquired if the applicant had opted to have the driveway located on the north side of the property. Mr. Oliver explained that Mr. Walsh believed that the percentage of the grade would make that feasible.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked if the driveway would only be on one side of the proposed structure. Mr. Oliver said that it would and lead back to a four-car garage in back. Mr. Oliver said that he was not certain that the property could be subdivided because of the single driveway, but would request to make the units condominiums with the grounds held in common.
• Mr. Wilson said that he understood that the garage would be under the house in the back with the garage doors on the north side. Mr. Knight said that idea had been discussed. When Mr. Wilson inquired about the site plans showing the garage and driveway, Mr. Oliver said that they had not been completed. Mr. Oliver explained that a driveway would be located on the north side of the proposed building that would lead to a detached garage in back. He added that the garage would be within one foot of the south property line and would open to the north. Mr. Oliver said he that planned to build a shed roof on the garage like the one on the garage on the adjacent property to the west so it would not limit the view.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquires, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Peggy Gentile, who resides at 171 W. Clinton Avenue, stated that her property abuts to the north of the subject property. She expressed her concerns regarding the scale of the proposed project although she agreed that the height would be similar with the building on the south. Ms. Gentile said that her home, which sits 30 feet below the road, and her neighbor's home were small little historic cottages and she believed that the proposed structure would "dwarf' their homes.
• Mr. Knight read a letter e-mailed to him by Ms. D'Arcy Dixon Pignanelli, who resides at 598 No. West Capitol Street, requesting that off-street parking, preferably a covered garage for four cars, would be required on this development, a copy of which was circulated to the Commission members and filed with the minutes.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
There was a short discussion regarding issues relating to this project.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved that the proposed plans for Case No.001-01 be forwarded to the Architectural Subcommittee for final approval after the following issues have been addressed: 1) the trellises in front and how they would change the east elevation; 2) the driveway plan; 3) the design of the contemporary windows and replacing them with a more traditional design; 4) the landscaping plan; and 5) some kind of screening for privacy. Further the plans for the garage, including the design of the doors, should be submitted to the full Commission for review and approval. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion.
The discussion continued regarding the motion. Ms. Rowland stated the need for usable front porches. Mr. Simonsen expressed his concern for the scale and mass, especially on the north and west side and the topography of the land. Mr. Young asked if Mr. Littig would consider amending his motion.
Amended motion:
Mr. Littig moved to conceptually approve Case No.001-01, based on the staff's findings of fact, pending review and approval of the following issues by the Architectural Subcommittee: 1) the trellises and entrances on the front (east) elevation; 2) the driveway plan; 3) design of the contemporary windows; 4) replacement of the Palladian window on the front elevation; 5) landscaping plan; 6) additional screening for privacy; 7) addition of usable front porches on the east elevation; 8) look at other options for parking in the rear; and 9) the massing of the structure, especially from the northern-west view, due to the topography of the land. Further the plans for the new garage, including the design of the doors, are to be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee and returned to the full Commission for final approval. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Gordon were not present. Mr. Young, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The vote passed.
Case No. 002-01. at 175-177 North "E" Street. by Phillip and Daniel Babcock, requesting to construct a two-story addition at the rear of the existing duplex in the Avenues District.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud stated that the applicants are requesting approval to construct a two-story addition to the duplex building. She said that the duplex was constructed about 1884 and was owned by a chimney sweep. Ms. Giraud said that the property is zoned SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to "maintain the unique character of older predominantly low-density neighborhood that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics." [SLC Ordinance 21A.24.080(A)].
Ms. Giraud noted that the floor plan would only be one-room wide and three or four rooms deep. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Phillip Babcock intends to renovate the structure about a year ago, Mr. Phillip Babcock approached the Planning Division staff and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) staff about altering the side-gable roofline to build a second story addition above the existing house. Ms. Giraud reported that the staffs of both entities replied that this would be unduly harmful to the integrity of the existing structure, and suggested alternatives.
Ms. Giraud stated that the applicants' proposal includes removing 19 feet off the rear of the building and constructing a two-story addition that would extend approximately 27 feet from the original duplex. She indicated that the applicants' plans were not complete.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure:
G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The property will be used as a duplex, which is its original use. The applicant would meet this finding.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The applicant is proposing to remove the rear portion of the building. This portion of the structure appears to be in very bad condition. As explained above, although this section is older than 50 years and thus has significance in its own right, it was not part of the original duplex. The applicant plans to preserve the character-defining features of the house, including the fenestration pattern, the moldings and fascia under the eave line, and the massing and form of the original house. The applicant would meet this standard.
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: The applicant is attempting to construct an addition that will respect the features of the original house, but would clearly be from the original house with a different configuration from the original roof profile. The applicant would meet this standard.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
Staffs discussion: The rear half of the house has acquired historic significance but appears to be unusable. It would not meet current building code requirements because it has been covered with an incompatible material, has no real foundation, and its height.
Staffs finding of fact: Although the existing addition has acquired historic significance, the condition is such that it does not meet building code requirements for health/safety regulations. Therefore, the retention and preservation of this existing addition is not recommended.
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;
Staffs discussion and finding of fact: This house is a distinctive example of modest, late-Victorian architecture in the Avenues. Although there were residences as early as 1884 in the Avenues, few of them remain that are this humble and this old. The home's age and its lack of pretension can be clearly read in the small size of the house, and in its form and massing, and thus staff finds that these qualities are the most critical features of the house.
Other important features include the fenestration pattern, which clearly delineates the house as a two-family structure. The elements associated with the fenestration include the rhythm of openings, the stone sills, the scrollwork above the windows, segmental-arch lintels, and the transoms in the doors. The applicants plan to repair these features or replace in kind. The applicant would meet this standard.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;
Staffs discussion: The applicants have spoken with staff about replacing the existing single-pane sashes with wood, double-pane sash, windows. Staff agreed with this, as long as the profile remained the same. A new door, proposed for the south end of the street elevation, would be wood to match the existing door on the north end. Although this house has suffered from neglect, its advantage is that little, at least on the exterior has changed, and thus little "guesswork" is involved.
Staff's finding of fact: At this writing, the applicant had not provided staff with a full set of plans, but had not proposed or undertaken any work that would mar the integrity of the house. Staff believes that the applicant intends to respect the original appearance of the home, and will conform to this standard. Staff recommends the Historic Landmark Commission delegate final approval authority to the preservation staff to ensure all exterior work complies with the standards and would not mar the integrity of the structure.
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment;
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The new addition would clearly read as an unoriginal part of the house, yet the original house will remain. There are many details to work out, but the step that the applicant has taken - moving the addition to the rear of the house, rather than on top of it- goes a long way to insuring that the original house stays intact. The roofline of the addition will differ from the roofline of the original house, but is not an incompatible feature with the streetscape. In fact, the house next door to the south has a roofline that progressively steps up in a series of different roof forms and shapes.
Because the addition will be set directly behind the original house, staff believes that it would sit far enough back from the street that it will appear to be part of the density that characterizes this stretch of "E" Street. Staff finds that the applicant would meet these criteria.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired if the proposed addition is constructed. Because the roofline would be different and the addition would be about 5.5 feet taller than the original roofline, the addition would be differentiated from the original, yet would not overwhelm it. Other elements, such as architectural features, are still to be determined. The applicant would meet this standard.
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council Staff's discussion: Several pages in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City address additions, including the following: (8.1) Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features; (8.2) Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building; (8.3) Place an addition at the rear of the building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structures, and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent; (8.4) Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time; (8.5) Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building; and ( 8.6) Do not construct a new addition or alteration that will hinder one's ability to interpret the historic character of the building or structures.
Staff's finding of fact: These standards are closely related to those in the ordinance. Staff finds that the applicant would meet these standards.
Ms. Giraud reported that Standards No. 7, chemical or physical treatments, No. 10, building materials, or No. 11, signage, were not applicable to the project.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff finds that this structure is a small but rare example of early twentieth-century housing in the Avenues which has fallen into disrepair. Its small size and its state of deterioration offer little to a prospective owner if it cannot be enlarged in some way. Staff recognized that more detail is needed for the plans. The staff recommendation is that the Historic Landmark Commission grant conceptual approval and require that the applicant work with the Architectural Subcommittee to refine the final plans, with the understanding that the staff could then issue a Certificate of Appropriateness."
Mr. Parvaz talked about the inaccuracies in the plans, such as the location of the doors and windows. Ms. Giraud said that she recognized that there were many problems with the plans.
Mr. Littig inquired if there was ever a porch on this building. Ms. Giraud said that she had not checked the Sanborn maps, but she was not aware of a porch.
Mr. Phillip Babcock and Mr. Daniel Babcock, the applicants, were present. Mr. Phillip Babcock said that he was aware of the discrepancies in the plans but intended to make all the corrections. He said that they were in a "state of emergency" to save the building from further water damage. He pointed out that they would like to begin the demolition and the patching on the roof as soon as possible. The applicants expressed their cooperation and welcomed suggestions and recommendations from the Commission.
The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Young led the discussion by saying that the applicant was not restricted to the original footprint of the building, only as much as the addition would not overwhelm the original structure, and the old and the new be clearly differentiated. The parking in the back was discussed. Mr. Young said that zoning dictated the setbacks in the rear yard and if there was an encroachment issue, the applicant would have to request a variance from the Board of Adjustment.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired how the new addition would connect to the old structure since the plans were not clearly defined. Mr. Phillip Babcock said that their intent would be to join them on the same plane. He said that all the brick would match. There was some discussion about the first floor plan where the new portion would meet the old. Mr. Young said that there were other tactics that could be used on the massing which could be worked out in the Subcommittee meeting. Some other members of the Commission made suggestions.
• Mr. Littig said that trying to blend the new portion and the old portion is not always important. He added that the Commission would like to see respect for the old and the new become independent. Mr. Phillip Babcock expressed concern about the building code and the fact that the addition would only be four feet from the building on the north. Ms. Giraud said that the building code issues would have to be reviewed by Building Services at the Permits Counter. Mr. Young said that an egress from the bedrooms would be needed. Mr. Littig suggested that the applicants bring a sample of the window type to the Subcommittee meeting and that the Subcommittee members could give them some direction in the proportion.
There were several suggestions and recommendations made by some members of the Commission, such as ways to relocate the bedroom windows to the east and west elevations to get the needed egress, and changing the roofline for the elevation.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Steve Burnett, who resides at 183 No. "E" Street, stated that he had some concerns about the project. He said that he was the previously owner of the subject property and happy that the applicants want to restore the building. Mr. Burnett said that he lived next door and questioned whether or not the structure was strong enough to handle demolition and the construction of an addition and inquired if the applicants had a report from a structural engineering ·firm. Ms. Giraud said that she did not have that information but would find out. Mr. Burnett added that, when the project is completed, his house would be between two tall buildings and would get very little light. Mr. Young said that the applicants would be required to submit a site plan to show where the duplex property was in relation to the adjacent properties. He said that one of the issues this Commission looks at is how the structure would react with the context of the neighborhood and the existing building. Mr. Young pointed out that the Commission can at least act to minimize the impact, but cannot force the applicants to put a one-story addition on the building if it is allowed within the zoning regulations.
• Mr. Fosa Osazuwa, a Housing Enforcement Officer for the City who is responsible for the Avenues area, said that this building has been an "eyesore" and a problem for the neighborhood for several years. He added that the City has had several complaints citing transients in the building. Mr. Osazuwa said that vacant buildings needed to be secure. He said that he believed the proposal would be an improvement in the neighborhood.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said there were many questions regarding the drawings and recommended that the applicant submit more complete drawings, showing the adjacent property with dash lines showing what would be demolished.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the demolition needed a separate approval by the Commission or would staff approve that portion administratively. Ms. Giraud said that the applicants asked staff to approve the demolition on the back but she told him that she was not comfortable with doing that without having some direction from the Commission. She said that staff had not reviewed many additions where so much of the roofline would change and does not have much precedence. Ms. Giraud suggested that the demolition not be approved until the new addition was approved. The discussion continued as the wording of the motion was discussed. Motion: Mr. Simonsen moved to conceptually approve Case No. 002-01, based on the staff's findings of fact, and forward it to the Architectural Subcommittee for final approval, pending the review of the following specific issues: 1) the form and massing of the building, particularly the form of the roof, the height of the ridgeline, and the potential effect on the adjacent neighbors; 2) the differentiation, including materials, of the new addition versus the original existing duplex; 3) greater details and full drawings that indicate type and features of the windows and doors; 4) refinement of details such as materials, trim, soffits, and fascia. Further, the Historic Landmark Commission approves the demolition of the original addition that is in poor repair on the condition of the 'final approval of the proposed addition. Mr. Payne seconded the motion.
There was further discussion relative to the issues at hand, such as the conceptual drawings needed to be complete showing the details of the demolition and whether or not the full Commission making a decision after a review of the Subcommittee.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved to conceptually approve Case No. 002-01, based on the staff's findings of fact, and forward it to the Architectural Subcommittee for final approval, pending the review of the following specific issues: 1) the form and massing of the building, particularly the form of the roof, the height of the
ridgeline, and the potential effect on the adjacent neighbors; 2) the differentiation, including materials, of the new addition versus the original existing duplex; 3) greater details and full drawings that indicate type and features of the windows and doors; 4) refinement of details such as materials, trim, soffits, and fascia. Further, the Historic Landmark Commission approves the demolition of the original addition that is in poor repair on the condition of the final approval by the Historic Landmark Commission of the new proposed addition. Mr. Payne said that his second still stood. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Gordon were not present. Mr. Young, as Acting
Chairperson, did not vote. The vote passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Case No. 003-01, requesting comments regarding the nomination of the "Salt Lake City Northwest Historic District" to be included on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud gave a brief overview of the project by saying that the people who reside in the Guadalupe, Fairpark, and surrounding neighborhoods petitioned for CBGB money, themselves, to hire a consultant, Ms. Korral Broschinsky, to prepare a National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Northwest Historic District. She said that the boundaries are, roughly, north of North Temple, between 500 and 1100 West up to 600 North. She said that the preservation planners consider the neighborhood's involvement as a "triumph" for such a project. Ms. Giraud referred to the letter she received from SHPO informing the City of the National Register nomination, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She said that the listing on the National Register would not place limitations on the properties by the federal, state, or city governments. She added that qualified property owners could be eligible for tax credits.
Ms. Giraud introduced an intern, Ms. Carleen Worstell who did much of the preliminary work in terms of researching and gathering information in preparation of the nomination.
Ms. Broschinsky displayed a map showing the entire area of the proposed district. She said that she considered this project a challenge because streetscapes are very different than those in the Avenues, which already had a name associated with it. She said that there are names associated with various places within the district, but not one that covers the entire area. Ms. Broschinsky pointed out the boundaries and gave a brief description of the district.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the Fairpark was part of the nomination. Ms. Broschinsky stated that the Fairpark was already listed as an individual landmark site on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Broschinsky had prepared a slide presentation of the buildings in the proposed Northwest Historic District, so the members of the Commission could have a clear picture of the community. There were several comments and some discussion regarding the buildings in the proposed area.
At the conclusion of the presentation, the members of the Commission extended their appreciation to Ms. Broschinsky for the excellent slide presentation and her efforts that went into preparing the nomination. Also, the fact that she presented the nomination, herself, was appreciated.
Ms. Giraud said that one of the responsibilities of Salt Lake City, as a Certified Local Government (CLG), is to review pending National Register nominations of properties within the community. She noted that the Historic Landmark Commission is the body that provides local insight and knowledge concerning the properties.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 003-01 to forward a positive recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the "Northwest Historic District" on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich seconded the motion. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, and Mr.
Simonsen were not present. Mr. Young, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The vote passed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Rowland so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M.